Marriage, Back door laws and policies, and tolerance issues

Well, as I see it discrimination tends to be quite irrational and my "own" definition of the word homophobe is pretty much the most common way of using the word I have encountered. One thing I picked up during my language studies is that words mean what people think they mean, not what it is written in the dictionary. Dictionaries afterall are edited based on how people use the words but with quite a time lag.

 

"Homophobe" is to people who dislike gays as "racist" is to people who dislike other races. It is simply the most commonly used term in modern usage to describe a person with that particular prejudice. By considering someone a homophobe you are not implying that they have a crippling fear of gays for which they should be medicated in order to cope with daily life, you're simply acknowledging their prejudice by drawing a conclusion from their stated positions. That said, racists never really have a rational, logical justification for their prejudice either, so comparing it to a "phobia" is not entirely inappropriate. I suppose you could refer to someone as a "gayist," but that just sounds dumb.

But here we are, back to arguing over the definition of a word and who gets to use it. Dot dot dot.

 

Just as I do not use the term "faggot" in my general discourse because it has pejorative connotations when used by a straight person, I believe it is fair to ask others not to refer to me as a "homophobe" in their general discourse because it too has pejorative connotations.

As for discrimination, I'll tackle that one again. Gnarff made this point earlier but I'll try again. Every society makes judgements about behaviours. I would say that behaviours fall into several categories, and every culture judges these behaviours differently. Here goes:

1: The behaviour is desirable and laudable. It is strongly encouraged. (examples: in early cultures, marriage was seen as a duty to the society. In militaristic cultures, military service is seen as a duty to the society. In modern societies, working at a job is seen (*by some) as a duty.)

2: The behaviour is acceptable. People who perform the behaviour are perceived as normal by the majority, and that majority approves of and positively sanctions the behaviour. (Modern heterosexual marriage, modern military service, going on humanitarian missions, having a car, etc.)

3: The behaviour is not generally accepted but is tolerated. (Any anti-social behaviour that is not criminal in nature -- people who talk too loud, swingers, open marriages, etc.) Most citizens may not agree with or approve of the behaviour but those who do it are not seriously punished, though they may receive minor social sanctions. In other words, it is a deviation from the norm that is frowned upon but not actively punished.

4: The behaviour is forbidden and viewed as extremely abnormal and unacceptable. Punishments or sanctions are severe (Bestiality, murder, rape, theft, assault, etc.) In other words, the behaviour is a deviation from the norm so extreme the society believes that it must be actively combatted.

Now for a long time homosexual behaviour fell into the fourth class -- it was a crime and punished by death. To be honest, I see that as excessive. If two people in their right minds consent to to something it shouldn't be a capital offense.

I put homosexual behaviour in the third category. I know they're there, and I am more than willing to mind my own business and not wander into their bedrooms and tell them what to do and what not to do. But I reserve my right to disapprove of it if the subject is brought up.

Society in general is not prepared to move gay marriage to category 2*, saying that they actively support or positively socially sanction the behaviour by celebrating it with equal status with heterosexual marriage. People have every right to make their opinions known regarding such changes to their society's views, and it doesn't make them bigots. Homosexuals also have the right to be heard, but they cannot demand others to accept them with open arms (though they DO have the right to expect to be left alone and not harassed.)

As for the whole religions thing, I wonder -- many pre-Christian societies did not practice or gay marriage -- I'm sure they had reasons other than religious ones, probably stemming from the belief that they viewed homosexuality as an unacceptable deviation from the norm.

 

The only problem with that assessment LKD, is that gay marriage really is in the fourth - not the third - category in most states. (Perhaps homosexuality in and of itself is in the third category, but gay marriage clearly is not.)

In most states gay marriage is not recognized, which means that it is neither accepted nor tolerated - those were the conditions you set for the third category. On the other hand, most states have laws that forbid gay marriage, which strongly suggests that the practice is unacceptable - which just so happens to be the conditions you set for category four.

I think that most people who are gay would absolutely LOVE to have gay marriage be in category three, but you'll have a very hard time convincing me they are there.

EDIT: Now to be fair LKD, you are Canadian, and gay marriage is legal there - so I will concede that Category 3 may be more applicable to Canada.

 

Point noted, but there is a distinct difference. When you call someone a "faggot" or a "n*gg*r," you are attacking that person's very humanity - something they cannot change - in the most negative way. When you call someone a racist or a homophobe, you are attacking their views, and people change their views all the time. In the first you are telling someone they are an inferior, in the second you are telling them they have an inferior point of view. One is obviously more hurtful than the other.

I understand that calling someone a homophobe is neither productive nor likely to make them change their mind, so your point is noted - but comparing the two as you have here is missing something very key to the issue .

 

It just seemed that he was trying to use the race card to refute my arguement.

Correlation does not imply causation. And who is to say that a larger number of people came out to defend marriage, regardless of the candidates in the election? I'm thinking that these numbers might cancel one another out...

No, I wasn't talking about that group because we know their opinion, and this issue won't change their voting pattern. I'm talking about the people that supported Obama that also support traditional marriage. I believe that an edict against their wishes would yield a backlash against the democrats that could cost them some states--Florida for sure, possibly California.

Your point about people opposing gay marriage supporting the Republicans is NOT automatic. 52% of California natives oppose Gay Marriage, but only 44 or 46% voted Republican. It's that 6 to 8 % of the population that I am specifically talking about.

There is a difference between the religious faithful and the Christian Right. For starters, Christians are not the only religion that opposes homosexuality. Secondly, The Republican party is not 100% in line with Christian teachings. They only enjoy the support of the Christian right because of key issues where the Democrats are seen to have abandoned the principles the Christian right values. There are those that would be devout Christians that would be on the fence, and supported Obama this time because they liked his policies on the Economy, but if he is not seen as a positive influence on the Economy (read mediochre or caught over his head with the promises he's made and fails dramatically with many of them as a result), and were to slap them in the face with a law enabling gay marriage, would they continue to support him in 2012?

I only quote what I'm responding to. I'm assuming that I'd be less popular if I quoted every word someone had to say...

It just seemed like you were playing the race card. But you may make my point after all. What percentage of this demographic would be as forgiving of Obama if he blatantly disgregarded their wishes on this issue? Take a look at Florida (which you seem to be neglecting here), where a similar initiative would have passed, there is a noticable African American population, and the state voted Democrat (although closer than California), but there is a much more vocal religious segment of the population. Would the Democrats be able to count on that state in 2012? I think not. And there are 28 other states where the people have voted on similar ammendments, they can't all be Red States. How many of them did go to Obama? Would they go to the Democrats again if he put gay marriage in place when it's clearly not wanted?

Okay, we clearly disagree on how big an issue Gay Marriage is. While you, a supporter, can call it a trivial issue, I believe that to the opponents, it is a bigger issue, which may be a contributing factor in how frequently it's being banned when the people get the vote on the issue.

I'll grant that point, but being so closely tied to the Religious arguements, I don't know that I can give him an answer he would be seeking. All I have to go by would be outdated psychology textbooks on that matter.

8: I agree. I believe it to be more than "just religious dogma" that would support the need for a child to have a mother AND a father (where possible, after all, there still is little protection for a deadbeat parent, divorce, or premature death of a parent), but as I said earlier, all I have to formulate such non-religious arguements on are some fifteen year old psychology textbooks...

Even a logically stated preference for heterosexuality might set these people off...

Let's take 8people's point one step further. Let's suppose that the best protection against STDs is complete fidelity to your wife (husband for you ladies here). Marriage brings with it the implication of sexual exclusivity with potentially severe consequences (stiff divorce settlements) for infidelity, abuse or neglect. Even though precautions are taken to reduce the possibility of conception, many of them do not address STDs. For this reason, marriage is recommended.

Further, there are some couples where the decision not to have children is considered wise. In your case, assuming you're honest with your age, you'd likely have a 49th birthday before the child was born, meaning you'd be 61 when it's time to have "the talk" with a son (/pauses while people wrestle with that image), and you'd have to deal with a 16 year old when you're 65. I don't think anyone would question your decision not to have children.

Likewise, if a woman has had one or more difficult pregnancies, and they keep getting more troubling every time, I can also agree with the decision not to grow there family further. But this does not reduce the bond between husband and wife complete with spiritual and psychological benefits to both. I just don't believe that a same sex union could grant these benefits even on a psychological level...

The question that comes into play in these threads is one of civil rights. How do we reconcile the realization that these people should have certain civil rights with what we consider sacred, which they clearly cannot have because they live in a way that displeased God. This is where the idea of Civil Unions come in. It lets the religious preserve what is sacred to them while granting this minority the civil rights that government is obligated to guarantee. I have yet to see any arguement against Civil unions that does not base itself in contempt for religion.

And there are some who post here that believe that religion is irrational, despite claims of the faithful to the contrary. By that logic, any religious opposition to homosexuality is an irrational discrimination to them. I understand that, despite my disagreement over the rationality of the opinion. But that does not mean that the term "homophobe" is any less offensive than the phrase "Filthy faggot".

LKD: I would class homosexuality as a 3.5 on your scale. While the behaviour is not criminalized, they do lose certain civil rights because their decisions if modern heterosexual marriage is classed at 2 on your scale.

Now if Heterosexual Marriage DOES fit in category 1, then it must meet two criteria. First, there must be a value places on marriage as one man and one woman that no other configuration can match. Second, this must be non-religious in it's origin. It could be argued that these were met to the satisfaction of the Supreme court in 1878, when the ban on polygamy was upheld, and 6 of 8 states where the Supreme Court challenges to that definition have rejected the idea of Gay Marriage would still affirm that those two criteria have been met. Interestingly enough, this may throw the civil rights arguement under the bus...

---------- Added 0 hours, 12 minutes and 13 seconds later... ----------

I look at it htis way. Homosexuality would be in category 3, but marriage (between man and a woman) would be in a higher category. That's why this issue is so contentious. If the benefits that heterosexual marriage are defined as an encouragement of heterosexual marriage, then that eliminates the civil need for equal rights for gay couples. I could live with that difference in rights, but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with it. Call it the lesser evil.

I'll give that to you on the "N" word, but I'm not convinced that sexual attraction is set in stone. For example I consider a tall woman more attractive than a shorter woman, but that doesn't mean I couln't fall in love with a 5 foot tall woman. Likewise if a guy is attracted to other men, I don't rule out the possibility of him falling in love with a woman...

I'll give you that views can change, but emotionally charged terms like racist or homophobe will be more likely to galvanize them in such positions at the expense of the larger point to be made.

 

OK, there was a ton of stuff Gnarff wrote above - I just picked out a couple of paragraphs because these seemed to capture his main points - and they are also the paragraphs where he asked direct questions of me, so I went with the following excerpts:

First, it's not playing the race card to say that most African Americans (AAs) voted for Obama. If you go with the votes from the general election, the lowest percentage of the AA vote Obama received from any state was 84%. In most states, he had over 90% of the AA vote.

Perhaps you were unaware that historically AAs vote overwhelmingly in favor of AA politicians? I didn't mention that point specifically, beause I thought it was obvious. It's not just in California either, but all across the nation. There are currently 39 members of Congress who are AA. All 39 come from Congressional Districts with high AA populations that lean Democratic (which isn't suprising as most AAs are Democrats).

Given the track record of AAs over the past 30 or so years (which is when we started to see AAs holding public office) from all areas of the country to all types of elected positions, I can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that Obama would still receive the vast majority of the AA vote even if he threw his full support behind gay marriage. There is simply no reason to believe otherwise. Even when AA politicians are involved in scandals (like when Jesse Jackson fathered a child outside of his marriage) he STILL received a ton of support from the AA community. So yes, Obama can still expect around 90% of the AA vote no matter where he comes down on this issue.

You see Gnarff, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you deliberately ignore my points. Let's consider why I have neglected Florida. I have been trying to show that gay marriage is not a major issue for most people regardless of whether they support or oppose it, which is why you can have a ballot initiative than bans gay marriage pass, yet also have the candidate that is OK with gay marraige win the election. Florida did not have a ballot initiative regarding gay marriage on the ballot in November. When you're trying to compare election results with a gay marriage ballot initiative, it's usually a good idea to pick a state that actually has such an initiative on the ballot. That seemed like a self-evident point, and I feared I would be insulting your intelligence to have to explain something so elementary. Evidently not.

But to answer your question, Florida is a swing state that votes Republican pretty much as frequently as it votes Democrat. As a result, the Democrats never "count on" Florida. Republicans don't "count on" Florida either. The only states that a presidential candidate expects to win at the outset of a campaign season are states that have a historical record of voting for a particular party - like Massachusetts always votes Democrat.

You're right - some of the states that have passed amendments banning gay marriage are blue states and did support Obama - someone who is OK with gay marriage. If the gay marriage issue is so important to these people - why would people vote for someone who is OK with it? My guess is that while they may be opposed to gay marriage, these people think there are more important issues, and they like Obama's platform on these other issues.

Your belief is simply not founded in reality. Throughout the election season, they take polls asking people what the most important issue is for them. In those polls, gay marriage consistently scores below 5% and is relegated to the "other" category when they show a bar graph of the results. So at least 95% of the population is casting their vote on this basis of something other than gay marriage. Given that Evangelical Christians make up about 20% of the population of the US, gay marriage isn't even the most important issue for them. Even the far right is more concerned about their jobs, their homes, their retirement accounts, Social Security, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health insurance etc. than they are about gay marriage. It's simply NOT an important issue for most people.

 

You're assuming all republicans oppose gay marriage -- not a valid assumption.

You're just preaching your morals here -- the broad conclusion is for people to have long-term monogamous relationships. Marriage does not automatically mean a monogamous relationship and people in manogamous relationships are not always married. You've chosen to narrow the conclusion to match your own beliefs.

Sorry, but I see no problem with having kids in your 40's. Who really cares what age a person has "the talk" with their child? Do you think someone in their 60's can't bring up the issues affectively? That's just bias on your part.

I don't see a difference here. A couple without children can grow together. Period. You'll need to prove same sex couples cannot grow "spiritually and psychologically" the same as opposite sex couples -- I don't think you, or anyone else, can prove that because it's simply not true.

"Falling in love" has sexual connotations. While it may be possible (and quite likely) a gay man could love a woman, the sexual aspects of "falling in love" are simply not there. Just as it is possible for a heterosexual man to "love" (i.e., care about) close male friends. I consider this to be a fundamental flaw in the roots of your arguments. You believe the gay man is "secretly" (to him at any rate) heterosexual, but under the influence of Satan. I, of course, believe Satan to be a myth and so this precept of your argument has no validity. I think people are either hardwired or environmentally conditioned to sexual preference (with hardwired being most of the equation).

 

What exactly do you base that belief on? Unless you're gay, how could you possibly make that assumption?

Most of the arguments here reject the religious arguments (or at least, your religious arguments. I'm not convinced all your views are consistent with mainstream religions; take chev's view on covenants attached to the word "marriage", for example). But "rejection" does not equate to "contempt".

 

Florida was one of the three states with such a ballot initiative this time around. My example is valid.

So this one demographic group will throw off common sense?

Because they assume that their stte is protected by that constitutional ammendment. Will they still vote that way if the Democrats ignore this?

Yes, there are bigger things than this one issue, but I don't think it's fair to deem this issue irrelevent.

I would bet that most of the people decide on more than just one issue. While they do have bigger concerns than this one issue, don't assume that they ignore it in the booth.

If MacCain were the one to get elected, then that would matter, but it's Obama, a Democrat that matters. It's the Democrats that are in power right now...

I'm trying to come up with an arguement that coincided with my beliefs that is not based in religious.

Just because you don't have a concern with that, doesn't mean that other people wouldn't agree with Splunge's decision based on similar logic to what I stated.

Why bother? Even if I do the research, I'll still be labeled a homophobe and be accused of pulling that out of my ass...

And I consider the sexual determinism that you are pushing to be absolute bullshit. We are not hardwired to be either straight or gay. The fact is that the nerves in the various parts of the body react to stimulation--regardless of the source.

So a proposal that leaves marriage alone--which keeps the majority happy--and still grants civil rights to gays--which is what the proponents claim they seek--is not good enough? That's not religious, that's simple common sense. If you have two groups that cannot really get along, you find ways to keep them separate. You don't just take from the quiet majority and give to the whiny minority to shut them up. That's pattently unfair...

 

There you go again - taking a comment out of context. You said that arguments against civil unions are based on contempt for religion, and I said that it wasn't contempt, but merely rejection. Rather than responding to the overall point of my statement (i.e. rejection vs. contempt), you merely went back to just repeating the same comment about civil unions that you've made ad nauseum. I won't bother addressing that again, because it's been responded to as many times as you've said it.

Regarding the point about having children when you're over 40 - my wife and I made the decision while we were in our mid-30's. But the problem with having children when you're over 40 is that you run a greater risk of birth defects. That obviously didn't influence our decision, but it might for some people.

 

I was unaware of that, but I just googled Florida 2008 ballot initiatives, and sure enough - they did have it. The main difference between Florida and California was not the initiative, but rather that California was already performing gay marriages, whereas gay marriage was never legal in Florida.

OK, let's go with Florida then. I'm still trying to see your point. On the surface it appears similar to what happened in California - a state that voted against gay marriage, get still voted for a politician who didn't have a problem with it. This also seems to support my point that gay marriage is not a big issue for many people.

Florida is just a weird state though. Florida has a population of African Americans, Hispanics and elderly that is significantly higher than the national average. Those three demographic groups are generally more religious than the average American. So in that sense it's not surprising to see them vote against gay marriage. However, those three groups also tend to vote Democrat - which calls into question why Florida isn't a solid blue state?

That, or they just don't think the one issue is important enough. Or maybe not. I cannot claim to know why the AA community tends to stand behind their candidates even when they are embroiled in scandal. I'm just telling you that it happens. Like the example of Jesse Jackson I gave above - if fathering a child outside of marriage isn't a big enough scandal, what would be?

I would tend to agree that most people decide on more than a single issue (at least I hope so). There has never been a presidential candidate in my lifetime in which I agreed with everything on his platform. As I have said before - one would have to be a partizan hack if they honestly believe that one party is always right and the other party is always wrong.

On the other hand, I also am inclined to believe that if a voter has a "most important" issue, then that issue is likely to take precedence over other issues, which necessarily are less important to the voter. Given the polls leading up to the election, and further considering all that has gone on in the last few years, I find it hard to believe that many people are really thinking about gay marriage when they enter the voting booth (except when it's a ballot initiative and they are being asked about it specifically). Come to think of it, I'm not even convinced gay marriage would be the most important issue among gay people.

I agree that age is a concern when having children - although the age of the mother and not the father is what usually raises the most concern. I certainly would not want my wife getting pregnant when she was 48 - the chances of birth defects and health complications of the mother at that age are well known.

On the other hand, just because Splunge is 48 does not necessarily mean his wife is also that age. Furthermore, for all we know, Splunge may have been married for a while already. Age may be a factor in their decision now, but if Splunge and his wife were married 10, 15, or 20 years ago, age would not have been a factor then.

Really? Do you have any sources to back that up? Or are you just speaking anecdotally ... from your own experience? I mean, I've never been stimulated by a guy, but I'm certainly not one to judge...

EDIT: One more thing Gnarff - you were the inspiration in my signature - quite the honor when you think about it.

 

And when I ask why the idea is rejected, I get contempt for religion thrown out as the reason.

Because I want to see a form of rejection that is NOT rooted in contempt for religion. I'm not seeing it coming from anyone here, so I must be right.

Still the idea of dealing with a teenager in your early 50's, or trying to help them with post secondary education while trying to get your finances in order to retire would still intimidate most people. That's the age where even couples with children decide to stop.

It seems to me that that was on the ballot as a referendum years back, the people voted it down, and the supreme court trumped that, so the people trumped the supreme court and ammended the constitution accordingly.

No, it only shows that the War in Iraq and the economy were bigger issues. My point is that there would be some that oppose same sex marriage that voted Democrat this time, but would the democrats still enjoy the support of those voters if they blatantly disregarded the wishes of this segment of the population--likely many of them not committed to either party politically. This would be especially true if Obama doesn't turn out to be this saviour that some people bill him to be...

Perhaps the fact that these demgraphics face an internal conflict between faith and disenfranchisement that feuls the unpredictability of the state at election time...

So it could be the race card rearing it's ugly head...

But the question is this: If Obama were to deliver a slap in the face to a significant percentage of voters that do not identify with either party, what credibility will he retain on these other issues?

I'm going from what I remember of college Psychology. Particularly the part on brain and nerve function. I was also not talking about the eyes, but specifically the nerves in the body. This is the autonomical responses, devoid of any other consideration. Further, I believe it was mentioned in some of those classes that bisexuality was the "natural state", not homosexuality or heterosexuality.

 

Ah yes, I forgot; the BoM always have all of the answers.

So then if we are all naturally inclined to feel sexual desire for both genders, what is wrong with having sex with both genders?

Physically, yes, but emotionally, not necessarily. I have 'been stimulated' by a male before and physically, it felt the same. I am not in any way attracted to him (he kind of interrupted something with a female, and we let him join...) and don't even particularly like him as a friend, but he knows what is doing in that region So yes, physical stimulation is physical stimulation, regardless (excluding situations where your body will physically say no but refusing to become aroused) of who is the stimulus, but it does not mean that someone like me (I consider myself heterosexual) is sexually attracted to men. I can find them attractive, but I don't want to bed them, and I don't fall in love with them.

The point is, the idea of sexual preference being hardwired is completely separate from how one is sexually stimulated.

 

Compassion, protection and security for everyone regardless of gender and preference.

 

No, you just lack some basic skills relating to reading and comprehension.

 

Because society relies on people being better than our "natural" state. Marriage was implemented by God to control the sacred gift of sexuality, to provide a place for the strong emotions involved, and to provide a safer structure to raise any children that result.

I was talking physically in that arguement. Emotional context is not restricted to gender, but the personal relationship between the people involved...

That's not the point. My point was that the nerves in the body react in a particular way, regardless of who is doing the stimulation. Attraction is much more complicated than that can ever be.

I never said they were tied together. I just said that a) stimulation does not take gender into account, and b) that what attracts people sexually is NOT hardwired into them. They are two distinct statements.

But Civil Unions (as opposed to marriage itself) would address that. It grants Civil Rights (protection and security) to homosexuals without defiling something sacred to religion (allowing them to get back to the compassion that ought to exist but is lost in the fighting). To me, it's a win-win solution...

 

While I can agree that nerves in the body will react to stimulation in a particular way regardless of who is doing the stimulating, all I can say is if you are being "stimulated" by a member of the sex you are not attracted to, it's probably not going to be a particularly pleasant experience. So I guess I can agree with point a) because you never said you would necessarily enjoy what was taking place. Realistically though, no one would consent to any type of activity with someone whose gender they didn't find attractive. Just because I could be stimulated by a guy doesn't mean I'd want to be!

On the other hand, point b) runs counter to everything I know about straight and gay people. I don't know anyone who decided to be gay, just as I don't know anyone who decided to be straight. And it seems absolutely absurd to suggest (as you seem to be doing) that anyone can just switch back and forth between which gender they will receive stimulation from and it's no big deal.

There's no way I can prove whether or not people are born gay. Babies and young children are not sexual. From everything I've seen though, you do seem to be hardwired by the time you are a young adult. If what you find sexually attractive was not hardwired, I'd think you'd see people switching back and forth all the time. That such instances are so rare argues strongly against a lack of hardwiring.